Life, The Universe, And Everything

[dano]

To Buddy:

Lesson of the day from dano,

In promulgating your esoteric cogitations or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity.  Let  your conversational communications demonstrate a clarified conciseness, a compact comprehensibleness, no coalescent conglomerations of precious garrulity, jejune bafflement and asinine affectations.  Let your extemporaneous verbal evaporations and expatriations have lucidity, intelligibility and veracious vivacity without radomontade or Thespian bombast.  Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous propensity, psittaceous vacuity, ventriloquial verbosity and vaniloquent vapidity.  Shun double-entendres, obnoxious jocosity and pestiferous profanity, observable or apparent.

 

In other words, say what you mean and DON'T USE BIG WORDS!

 

Your welcome!

[Ouroboros]

Dano,

 

I second that.

[dano]

As I said before in a post you never responded too, I can't believe in god not because god doesn't exist but because, god CANNOT exist...god is just a word with no meaning.

 

Buddy,

 

Yes, you are far behind. I’m still looking forward to you answer.

 

Either way, Kuroikaze’s point is very valid, because if god existed, the universe would be startling different.

 

Just consider, nearly 100% of the universe is uninhabitable and deadly to “his” creations – i.e. his centerpiece - humans. The message of this so-called God is so ambiguous as to be nearly unintelligible and what we can understand is totally contradictory and makes no sense at all. We never see him or his works, nor do we get something like an “out-of-office” message indicating that he does in fact exist but is away from his desk currently and busy with something else. What we do see can be explained by natural forces. What we can understand (if we’re bothered to) looks perfectly normal and rather un-miraculous. And like any abusive relationship, he never talks to us, his supposed beloved creations, and the rumor is, he’s going to punish us (AGAIN) for not believing in him even though he’s never here to help us believe in him. If there was a Multi-universal court of law, these would be sufficient grounds for divorce!!

 

God doesn’t exist Buddy, because the Universe is the way it is.

 

If God existed, then the Universe would be much smaller and more habitable for it’s occupants instead of being mostly deadly, near-vacuum, highly irradiated space. Humans possessing a soul would be vastly different to animals – the whole biological process would be something else – yet it’s not – we all have genes and similar processes. Strange and unexplainable events would plague us and satisfactory explanation of these events would evade us nearly all the time whereas now, we can explain most, if not all, of what happens around us most of the time.

 

If God existed, there’d be giants, sea monsters, cockatrice, fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, talking burning bushes, walking talking snakes and other talkative animals, satyrs, demons, ghosts, walking dead and other zombies, magical fruit, six-winged humans, sticks that turn into snakes (not hypnotized snakes but real sticks), wizards, witches, etc – yet, none of theses exist!

 

So Buddy, what’s your response. I’m still waiting on the last one.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

 

Sparrow! Beautiful as usual!

 

dano adds a comment by "Sir Grandpa Harley":

 

"I still want to know what the existence of God predicts... there are no 'natural' laws... no causality... since it can all be stopped on a whim... God makes it all rather dull and pointless... so, what does the God hypothesis bring to the table?"

[dano]

I've always said that if I were going to believe in a God "It" would have to be more omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent than Bible God.

 

...and I sorta do, and suspect that "She" sorta is!

 

...but what do I know. I'm just a 71 year old monkey living on an insignificant planet. The seventh monkey in the passle, and was raised on leftovers.

[Ouroboros]

The universe isn't best fitted for life, it's best fitted for black holes, exploding stars, colliding galaxies and other catastrophic events and besides that it's best fitted for huge areas of nothing. Way to go God! Did you really spend a whole 5 days making all that waste?

[Sparrow]

 

... Text ...

 

Spatz

 

Sparrow! Beautiful as usual!

 

dano adds a comment by "Sir Grandpa Harley":

 

"I still want to know what the existence of God predicts... there are no 'natural' laws... no causality... since it can all be stopped on a whim... God makes it all rather dull and pointless... so, what does the God hypothesis bring to the table?"

 

Thank you kind Sir! It is my pleasure.

 

Spatz

[dano]

The universe isn't best fitted for life, it's best fitted for black holes, exploding stars, colliding galaxies and other catastrophic events and besides that it's best fitted for huge areas of nothing. Way to go God! Did you really spend a whole 5 days making all that waste?

 

Don't blame God. He was invented by a bunch of Jewish comedians!

(Dano)

[Sparrow]

I've always said that if I were going to believe in a God "It" would have to be more omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent than Bible God.

 

...and I sorta do, and suspect that "She" sorta is!

 

...but what do I know. I'm just a 71 year old monkey living on an insignificant planet. The seventh monkey in the passle, and was raised on leftovers.

 

Monkey though you may be, you're still a cute monkey!!

 

:wink:

 

Spatz

[Sparrow]

Geez!?! Where's Buddy?

 

No replies.

 

Is he out getting a bit drunk on the alter wine?

 

Did we hammer him too much so he went out and is getting himself hammered?

 

Spatz

[bush country]

Just consider, nearly 100% of the universe is uninhabitable and deadly to “his” creations – i.e. his centerpiece - humans. The message of this so-called God is so ambiguous as to be nearly unintelligible and what we can understand is totally contradictory and makes no sense at all. We never see him or his works, nor do we get something like an “out-of-office” message indicating that he does in fact exist but is away from his desk currently and busy with something else. What we do see can be explained by natural forces. What we can understand (if we’re bothered to) looks perfectly normal and rather un-miraculous. And like any abusive relationship, he never talks to us, his supposed beloved creations, and the rumor is, he’s going to punish us (AGAIN) for not believing in him even though he’s never here to help us believe in him. If there was a Multi-universal court of law, these would be sufficient grounds for divorce!!

 

Posts like this are why I have hung around and waded through the other 750+ posts in this thread. Well said!

[Grandpa Harley]

Yup...

[Antlerman]

I do not through the baby out with the bath water, but to be certain I don't drink that bath water any more. I'm an atheist and follow no religion, yet I have a deeper sense of spirituality now than I ever did in religion.

Alright, the music is awesome! Nicely done. Where did 'Sojourner' come from as a site title?

 

So you're an atheist without god or religion, but spiritual. Care to elaborate a little on that? I'm pretty sure I don't understand quite what you're describing. I was under the impression that the atheist's position was somewhat anti-spiritual, unless you're using 'sense of spirituality' in a way with which I'm unfamiliar.

Buddy

Sorry I'm missing so much in this thread. Time's limited now. Thanks. Sojourner was a name I chose when writing the piece that became the title track of the album. In my mind I saw something like the Voyager space craft traversing the vast expanses of space, taking in the wonders of the universe, alone with only itself confronted with the greatness of existence. It's that image that connected deeply with me, in a sense a symbol of how I saw myself in life. It was interesting that about a year after that piece was written, they announced the name of the space craft that would travel on the surface of Mars as Sojourner.

 

I suppose I could change my user name here to that, but I'm liking Antlerman still.

 

To your question: I think Kuroikaze touched on it pretty well in talking about what "spirituality" means. The word and the experience are not owned by Christianity, but are fairly common place in usage. I use it in the sense of a transcendent-like quality of human emotion, to things like a confrontation with the enormity of the universe, to the beauty of life before our eyes, to the connection of a human heart with another with a knowing shared in ways that our common language fails to speak of. It is the realm of poetry, of music, of art, of dance, of joy, or that sublime sense of the "glories" of our humanity.

 

These are ours. They are our responses to our experience of our own being. They are experienced from within, and they do not come from something that exists outside of us. It is nothing supernatural, but it is extraordinary. By that it means beyond the mundane. It is in those moments that we have "vision" of something greater, something to aspire to, something to promote and share. It not just seeing beauty, but tasting it. It is human "spirituality", to borrow the term.

 

Part of religion seeks to evoke this "greater" sense, yet ultimately in Christianity the religion is far more a hindrance in the bigger scope of things, than a help in this. I hear people defending beliefs, rather than seeking knowledge when they are involved in religion. To me knowledge and solid scientific understanding of the universe is VASTLY more inspiring than stories about a man working miracles at a wedding party.

 

Imagination. It's imagination that moves us forward. A heavenly Christ can inspire the imagination of some, but the knowledge available before us, can surpass this by generations, by millennia. The more we peel back the more layers we see, reality meets imagination and we need not create mythical beings anymore to inspire.

 

Being an atheist only means I don't see reasons or a need to believe in any gods. Reality is vastly more inspiring. My seeking to fit the idea of a god into my experience of life hindered, not helped me. I am not anti-religious, but I am against the denial of the our complete humanity by the systematic missue of myth to deny our reason under the false label of "faith". Why are "religious" people the first to deny the things science discovers? What does this say? What are they interested in, and what are they not interested in, and why?

 

What are your thoughts to this Buddy? You are the only Evangelical Christian I've encountered who seems like they might be able to address these points.

[BuddyFerris]

My curiosity is piqued by the blanket dismissal of non-natural events by all here save one; it's as though atheism evokes a need for there to be nothing beyond the reach of one's own minds. Perhaps if we were to arrive at a foundation for discussing non-natural events, then we might labor through the process of evaluating interpretations.

 

Buddy

... You probably mean that you think atheist thought generally seems to disallow all claims of the supernatural. Well, that's a bit of a broad-brush mentality, and I have no idea what all atheists think about anything -- non-belief in Christianity isn't an organized thing. But I personally disallow claims to the supernatural because claims to the supernatural are always based entirely on homily and cute little personal experience stories.

 

Since all experience of reality ultimately takes place within the mind, and there is no physical evidence for any of the supernatural creatures people claim to have experienced, it is logical to assume that such experiences are the result of something going on in the mind of the person claiming to "KNOW" that supernatural entities are mucking about. In other words, metaphorically, you are seeking to convince us that you are the reincarnation of Napoleon. You are convinced beyond all doubt of your previous life status, but...

WM,

I was with you right up to the Napoleon part.

 

You're right regarding the general difficulties a rationalist faces in doing other than disallowing claims to the supernatural, although they're not all based on cute little personal stories. It's been an education for me in trying to understand the points of view represented here, many quite well expressed in eventually understandable form. It's beginning to look like the greatest difference in our perspectives is as you've described here.

 

"Since all experience of reality ultimately takes place within the mind...": Understandable and, with emphasis on 'experience', perhaps accurate. Whatever portion of reality we experience may be mind-based, but reality itself must by definition be larger. If no one 'experiences' a given sunrise, did it occur on schedule? Is there not the possibility of reality outside your experience?

 

"...and there is no physical evidence...": States a requirement for a particular type of evidence that represents only a subset of reality. Still seems like blinders.

 

"... physical evidence for any of the supernatural creatures ...": Restated; material evidence for something which is by definition immaterial.

 

And I'm Napoleon, reincarnated.

 

I'm not trying to be pig-headed or argumentative; I'm still trying to grasp the 'mind is the measure' philosophy.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

... what "spirituality" means. The word and the experience are not owned by Christianity, but are fairly common place in usage. I use it in the sense of a transcendent-like quality of human emotion, to things like a confrontation with the enormity of the universe, to the beauty of life before our eyes, to the connection of a human heart with another with a knowing shared in ways that our common language fails to speak of. It is the realm of poetry, of music, of art, of dance, of joy, or that sublime sense of the "glories" of our humanity.

 

These are ours. They are our responses to our experience of our own being. They are experienced from within, and they do not come from something that exists outside of us. It is nothing supernatural, but it is extraordinary. By that it means beyond the mundane. It is in those moments that we have "vision" of something greater, something to aspire to, something to promote and share. It not just seeing beauty, but tasting it. It is human "spirituality", to borrow the term.

 

Part of religion seeks to evoke this "greater" sense, yet ultimately in Christianity the religion is far more a hindrance in the bigger scope of things, than a help in this. I hear people defending beliefs, rather than seeking knowledge when they are involved in religion. To me knowledge and solid scientific understanding of the universe is VASTLY more inspiring than stories about a man working miracles at a wedding party.

 

Imagination. It's imagination that moves us forward. A heavenly Christ can inspire the imagination of some, but the knowledge available before us, can surpass this by generations, by millennia. The more we peel back the more layers we see, reality meets imagination and we need not create mythical beings anymore to inspire.

 

Being an atheist only means I don't see reasons or a need to believe in any gods. Reality is vastly more inspiring. My seeking to fit the idea of a god into my experience of life hindered, not helped me. I am not anti-religious, but I am against the denial of the our complete humanity by the systematic missue of myth to deny our reason under the false label of "faith". Why are "religious" people the first to deny the things science discovers? What does this say? What are they interested in, and what are they not interested in, and why?

 

What are your thoughts to this Buddy? You are the only Evangelical Christian I've encountered who seems like they might be able to address these points.

I'll accept your use of 'spirituality' without complaint, although it still suggests the existence of a spirit apart from the mere physical existence. The things you describe push the limits of a rationalist's philosophical framework. To the rationalist, there seems little left of awe in the presence of things so well understood and explained.

 

On imagination: in the world as I see it, imagination runs in one of two directions, generally up or generally down. You describe the up-side, and describe it well. The limits of our lives are defined by the limits of our imagination, whether self-inspired or God-breathed.

 

I'll agree with you that Western Christianity may well be more of a hindrance than a help to a creative mind or an imaginative spirit. In the art world (my sister is an art professor at a university up north), creative expression frequently runs afoul of both the politicos and the preachers. Her students have sparked some campus fun with their work, causing havoc for the university public relations department. Local community churches are frequently bastions of the status quo, perhaps because the members are looking for a little stability and security. The possibility of change is a problem for them; inevitable change is a continual stressor. The one I attend is a fair cross section of folks, and is accustomed to high-speed change.

 

"Why are "religious" people the first to deny the things science discovers? What does this say? What are they interested in, and what are they not interested in, and why?" --- The answer is probably in the question. 'Religious' people are ideologists like all others, perhaps as many atheists are as well. In such a mindset, things which appear to threaten will provoke a strong denial. Things which counter will elicit attack. The difficult task is to hold to the precepts without forfeiting humanity, something you seem to have done reasonably well.

 

I've done my best over the years to avoid becoming religious; I've done better on some issues than others, obviously. I don't think God is religious; from what we know of his thoughts on the subject, it's an annoyance.

 

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

"...and there is no physical evidence...": States a requirement for a particular type of evidence that represents only a subset of reality. Still seems like blinders.

 

as opposed to what kind of evidence exactly? You still haven't addressed my post, and I certainly asked for a response.

 

"... physical evidence for any of the supernatural creatures ...": Restated; material evidence for something which is by definition immaterial.

 

what would immaterial evidence look like? you haven't even shown that there is good reason to believe in these things...it seems like the sum total of your argument can be summed up with "Rational thought blinds you to the ridiculously small chance that there might be something out there" As if we should accept any crazy claim...anyone can argue that proof for their ideas exist outside the known realm.

 

Your arguments for gods existence remind me of a guy who is trying to convince his buddies that he really has a girlfriend "she...uh...lives out of town...in...uh...Canada...yeah Canada, you haven't met her but she is real I swear." Give me a break.

 

 

I'm not trying to be pig-headed or argumentative; I'm still trying to grasp the 'mind is the measure' philosophy.

Buddy

 

Then how do you suppose we measure reality? at the core all we have is our minds. Sure reality is real, and is what it is no mater how we perceive it...but our senses coupled with reason are the best tools for understanding what is real, when someone asks me to disavow my senses I cry "snake oil salesman" you don't have any more senses than I...you are just more willing to believe the unbelievable for some odd reason.

 

In any other issue you would be just as likely to reject unfounded ideas as me, If someone suggested your wife was cheating, I bet you would ask for real PHYSICAL evidence before you believed. The only reason you still believe in Christianity is because in your own mind you have committed the fallacy of special pleading, and clearly think that Christianity...and perhaps all religious claims in general...do not need to follow the same basic rules of rationality that any other idea would be expected too.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way...in many ways I pity you, because I was once the same way...and that type of thinking brought a lot of problems for me. In the end the best judge of the correctness of a belief is does it always work Christianity proved to me that it did not work, end of story as far as I am concerned.

[Kuroikaze]

"... physical evidence for any of the supernatural creatures ...": Restated; material evidence for something which is by definition immaterial.

 

 

Yes, but it should be noted that according to Christianity god takes real actions in the material world...which would be, GUESS WHAT, EVIDENCE.

 

One cannot see the wind, but can see evidence of it...thats in the bible in fact. The problem is that there isn't any evidence of his actions in this world which throws out the Christian god right off the bat.

 

Deism is the only belief that holds a god exists but takes no actions in the material world.

[BuddyFerris]

... So lets say I take of my blinders, what then? what exactly is it that you would like us to believe? Even you don't seem to know, your only firm description of god I can drag out of you is "something we don't really know anything about," you refuse to take a firm theological stance on ANYTHING, because as soon as we point out a flaw in your thinking you shift to another stance. Even if we were to agree with you, you have NOTHING to offer. ... All you keep reiterating is that we should believe god exists because we don't understand everything...so god must be in those things....it is a pointless and useless position that creates no new ideas, answers no questions, and cannot even give us a description of this god you say you follow. ... As I said before in a post you never responded too, I can't believe in god not because god doesn't exist but because, god CANNOT exist...god is just a word with no meaning.

 

... Care to comment?

Sure, even if doing so precludes responding to someone else who will eventually remind me as you have. I've given up keeping up; now I'm back to 'water coolering', joining a conversation in progress.

 

God cannot exist ... nor can we. But we do, don't we. But wait, you protest, we were inevitable in this universe from its' inception, we're here because life happens, is aggressively adaptive and persistent. Precisely.

 

"... what exactly is it that you would like us to believe?" --- If I were to offer any suggestion for your belief structure, it would be that perhaps your horizons are too close, your limits too strict, your generalizations too hasty. I would not care to choose your beliefs for you, although I'd gladly follow along for the adventure.

 

"you refuse to take a firm theological stance...": --- Shall I recite the Apostle's Creed for you? Would that satisfy anyone here? Glad to.

 

"...your only firm description of god I can drag out of you is "something we don't really know anything about": --- Not my description of God. Didn't know I'd been asked for one; don't know if I could produce one that would be useful. What kind of description would you like?

 

"...keep reiterating is that we should believe god exists because we don't understand everything...": --- Nope; your presuppositions are showing. I've generally suggested that the narrowly defined position commonly espoused here precludes access to a portion of available truth. Blinders.

 

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

If I were to offer any suggestion for your belief structure, it would be that perhaps your horizons are too close, your limits too strict, your generalizations too hasty. I would not care to choose your beliefs for you, although I'd gladly follow along for the adventure.

 

You act as if I don't know anything about religious beliefs, I was a Christian for 6 years...I already gave that belief system a shot, and found it wanting... 6 years is "too hasty?" And if fact you are suggesting I believe in god in this little statement...though you can't apparently give me a any idea what god even is.

 

 

"you refuse to take a firm theological stance...": --- Shall I recite the Apostle's Creed for you? Would that satisfy anyone here? Glad to.

 

Ok, do you really believe everything in the apostles creed? Would you really like a run down off all the killing, lying and deception that went on in the early church to arrive at that creed?

 

"...your only firm description of god I can drag out of you is "something we don't really know anything about": --- Not my description of God. Didn't know I'd been asked for one; don't know if I could produce one that would be useful. What kind of description would you like?

 

Well, isn't this my whole point? you can't produce a definition that would be useful...finally you admit something. Now here is my thoughts on this, you wonder WHY I don't believe in god...but you admit that you believe in something you can't even produce a meaningful definition for. With this in mind, I think why is the wrong question. I think the better question is HOW can I believe in something when I don't even know what the hell it is? How can you for that matter?

 

I would also point out that the apostles creed attempts to define god...which seems to be a bit of a contradiction...either you can or cannot define god.

 

 

 

"...keep reiterating is that we should believe god exists because we don't understand everything...": --- Nope; your presuppositions are showing. I've generally suggested that the narrowly defined position commonly espoused here precludes access to a portion of available truth. Blinders.

 

MY presuppositions? because you don't' have any right? give me a break, you're whole argument is based upon presuppositions...if I have made in presuppositions in regards to your position it is only because you are too mush mouthed to say what you mean the first time.

 

Besides your statement is not actually different than mine...its just dressed up in big words to make it seem more intellectual. Because your thinking is that the "truth" you have is not understandable by logic, reason, or the empirical method...and those are the only reliable tools humans have for understanding anything...Faith and the like have been shown to be flawed time and time again.

 

You keep calling me narrow...as if the only virtue is open mindedness and if having the gall to say some ideas are stupid makes me "narrow minded" in your book, so be it. If one follows your position out logically one has no reason to disbelieve any fool idea that someone comes up with...and it seems silly to take up the role of a philosophical skeptic and doubt everything...even reason itself. It is a self defeating philosophy. I'm not wearing blinders...I have honestly examined the claims of Christianity and found them to be so much crap.

[Legion]

I've generally suggested that the narrowly defined position commonly espoused here precludes access to a portion of available truth. Blinders.

I find this to be somewhat disappointing Buddy. We are blind, but you can see? What are we missing?

[Antlerman]

No time to respond tonight but just wanted to say that it's beyond rare to have someone from within Christianity read and comprehend what I'm saying. and offer your own reasoned thoughts in an articulate and thoughtful manner. You have my respects, and from me that's a very high compliment.

 

I will like to respond after a night's sleep. Long day today.

 

Thanks

[Kuroikaze]

I'll accept your use of 'spirituality' without complaint, although it still suggests the existence of a spirit apart from the mere physical existence. The things you describe push the limits of a rationalist's philosophical framework. To the rationalist, there seems little left of awe in the presence of things so well understood and explained.

 

 

I thought this was worth commenting on...you seem to think that one can only be awed by something if they are ignorant of how it works. I think the opposite is true, one can only be truely awed by the inter workings of the universe when they understand them. Just something to think about.

[BuddyFerris]

And you somehow find it unreasonable that we disbelieve, shifting the burdon to us as you question the values of the scientific method, reason, and scientific discovery.

I've not questioned the value of science or reason, only the validity of the many final conclusions based on science (a limited data and rule set) and reason (by which most here mean rationalism, also limited from my point of view). For instance, the beginning of our universe offers us the beginning of space-time and physical laws to which we apply our reason. Yet inexplicably, our reason doesn't suggest to us that a beginning point for all which we depend upon by way of structure and predictability should have an antecedent! What preceded the beginning? We are quite sure that the physical laws with which we are familiar did not precede that beginning. We are emphatically sure that none of the life forms with which we are familiar did not precede that beginning. The only thing we do know is that science tells us nothing about that which precedes the laws on which science depends. Reason, freed from exclusive dependence on science, may well provide assistance.

 

It would be an assumption of cosmological magnitude to insist that the trigger mechanism for this universe be describable according to laws which did not apply (exist) at the instant of the event or prior to it.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

I've generally suggested that the narrowly defined position commonly espoused here precludes access to a portion of available truth. Blinders.

I find this to be somewhat disappointing Buddy. We are blind, but you can see? What are we missing?

Legion,

A trite answer won't do here, and I'm afraid I don't yet understand enough about the atheist's view of things to answer the question well. Don't presume I'm offering anything other than a different perspective. The blinders comment has been made toward all parties here and is perhaps valid on both sides of the discussion. I'm not here to prove or persuade.

Buddy

[Vigile]

Buddy, I for one don't pretend to have a total grasp on the origins of the universe or of life for that matter. What I don't know can fill oceans.

 

I do, however, reject the god notion, and most specifically, the Christian god notion due to not only a lack of evidence, but on a recognition that arguments for its existence are laughingly riddled with fallacies.

 

There may be a god, but I certainly can't know based on current evidence. I reject the idea that feelings and personal experiences are valid reasons for belief. I reject prophecies because they are subjectively interpreted and the numerous false ones are ignored. I reject the gospel accounts because they are founded on circular reasoning, they make extraordinary claims without a preponderance of evidence, and because the Jesus figure had so many mythological models that preceded him that Occam's razors causes me to conclude that he is but a compilation of the savior myth.

 

The bottom line, I accept ToE as an explanation of how current life forms reached their current state. If ToE is ultimately disproven (doubtful) it wouldn't lend in any shape or form toward the Christian claims. There is certainly much we don't know about life and how the universe formed. But there is also no evidence for a creator.

 

Why should I give even an ounce of credence to creator claims when the best evidence a Christian can provide for it is "you don't KNOW the origins of the universe"?

[Ouroboros]

I've not questioned the value of science or reason, only the validity of the many final conclusions based on science (a limited data and rule set) and reason (by which most here mean rationalism, also limited from my point of view). For instance, the beginning of our universe offers us the beginning of space-time and physical laws to which we apply our reason. Yet inexplicably, our reason doesn't suggest to us that a beginning point for all which we depend upon by way of structure and predictability should have an antecedent! What preceded the beginning? We are quite sure that the physical laws with which we are familiar did not precede that beginning. We are emphatically sure that none of the life forms with which we are familiar did not precede that beginning. The only thing we do know is that science tells us nothing about that which precedes the laws on which science depends. Reason, freed from exclusive dependence on science, may well provide assistance.

True. What preceded the beginning? Well, there's nothing in evidence that would suggest that it necessitate any form of intelligence or a willful act either. If God exited before everything existed, then God is not part of everything, or that statement is wrong.

 

It would be an assumption of cosmological magnitude to insist that the trigger mechanism for this universe be describable according to laws which did not apply (exist) at the instant of the event or prior to it.

Are you sure? What about if we find out the underlying laws to our physical laws and our universe, and those laws are deeper and part of the initial trigger mechanism? What about if M-theory is proven to be true?

 

Don't assume that the Big Bang came from nothing, but it did come from something, and we just have different views on what that "something" was. Well, would you say science have a better chance of actually finding out and proving or disproving it, or does religion have a better chance to figure out what existed before Planck time?

 

We both assume that something was there, but as a skeptic and agnostic, I don't pretend to know for sure. I suspect it was just another layer of some physical things, but I don't suspect or assume that it was sentient. If we discover that before Big Bang there was another form of timeline and before that there was something else... then religion would have to push the "First Cause" and "God" just another step further away from us, but religion will never catch up, it will only be further away to explain reality.

 

Religion will always be the symbolic language of the things we can't see, can't explain, can't know, can't prove, can't investigate, but only believe, feel and hope for. So what is religion then, but the need in the human psyche to find answers and explanations for the things science hasn't found yet? Religion isn't more than the feeble attempt by the human mind to comfort itself when it feels small, weak and vulnerable. Religion is for the weak minded, and it requires courage to step out of it, and step away from it. Do you have that courage, or do you still need that crutch to help you through the day?